9/28/2008I've been super busy with school this semester -- no time for Atheist Nexus, sadly!!If anyone who's around here a lot wants me to toss them moderation privileges to run this group or anything, just send me (Sara) a message! Thanks!

11/14/2009Removed ability to send mass messages to everyone in the group. At 1000+ members, that seems like asking for spam.

Offer still open if anyone active in the group wants moderation privileges, but it appears everything has been going smoothly with all kinds of great discussions without moderation. Fantastic! :)

Comment Wall

You need to be a member of Atheists who love Science! to add comments!

I'm a child of the 70's and a big NASA fan, but the issue of what to do with it has vexed me for two decades now. There is some obvious use; orbital Earth studies, telescopes, etc ... but I just really don't see the value of the ISS. Let's face it, the return on the $ just isn't what it used to be. What we NEED to be doing now is bio-tech and nano-tech research. Space is SO 1970s. If the U.S. is to maintain our technological lead, it won't be by "doing space". What we need to focus on is: what research will give us the greatest gains for Humanity? That is where we need to be.

Steven, your "Money spent on repairing a road or subway is not wasted money" muddies the waters.

Very different people, NASA workers and road builders, are directly employed. When those direct employees spend their money they create indirect employment. When those indirect employees spend their money they create further indirect employment, et cetera. So in one sense the money is not wasted.

However, people who build roads can rightly say some of their taxes are wasted. When, for instance, NASA studies colonizing Mars, the money that pays for travel to/from Mars and for the stuff that NASA leaves on Mars does not benefit taxpayers.

All of the money spent building roads benefits people here on earth.

The results of economic analysis are not easily summarized in short sound bytes.

I think there is a misconception about how the economics of government spending works. Money spent on public projects are not wasted monies that mean it is taken from a zero sum pool. Money spent on repairing a road or subway is not wasted money. People are employed and infrastructure is created or repaired. We can choose to spend government money as long as we understand how we are creating value and exchange. In the same way money spent on NASA does not mean we can not do other research or services. When WWII began for the US, government expenditures expanded exponentially, but we were able to do it because we had the political will. The theories of economics need to be updated to account for how government expenditure works.

NASA does a lot for the advancement of science, beyond just space exploration. They have developed new materials, new technology, and scientists around the world have learned a lot about the world, climate, geography, space, physics, etc. We'd miss out on a lot of things without NASA.

That said, I'm not like a huge backer of NASA, though I'm not against it either. But Tyson is completely right. The money to fund NASA is here, it's just being spent on other things that our legislators have decided are more important. Some of them are, a lot of them are not. But it's all because of lobbyists and big money corporations. Almost all of our federal legislators are corrupt, as far as I'm concerned. They pass bills and vote for things that are in their personal best interest, most of the time. They don't do what is best for their constituents or the nation, and they certainly don't listen to what their constituents WANT. They go with the money. Almost every time.

NASA is doing a great job of measuring earth systems related to climate change. That could be instrumental in bettering life on earth - if people would only acknowledge the measurements instead of calling climate change a conspiracy.

Tyson didn't mention another service NASA performs. It keeps highly trained technical people off welfare. More people will acquire the training and America will have people to design the weapons for future "defense" needs.

Remember when all those farm boys and girls came home from WW II and took advantage of the GI Bill? Out of that investment came unimaginable wealth. We didn't plan to develop any one sector, we just knew we owed these young men and women for their services. And we paid them in the best way possible .. make education available for those who were able and willing take advantage of the opportunities. Some didn't take the opportunity and wondered why their skills did not match the developing needs for technical skills, whether in science, health care, education or whatever. Those who accepted the opportunity were able to develop their natural talents into something very valuable. Prosperity and development resulted. Those GI Bill recipients are dying off now, and do we have the minds and skills to replace them? Do we? We have a lot of bright young people who know how to scam the financial markets. Do we have the engineers, doctors, scientists, inventers?